Presseinformation - Preu Bohlig & Partner

Dec 23, 2015 - now”, remarks German Attorney-at-Law Dr. Oliver Scherenberg of the ... One World Trade Center, 10007 New York, USA [text redacted].
2MB Größe 4 Downloads 510 Ansichten
Presseinformation

23.12.2015

Daniel Giersch vs. Vanity Fair: Unwahre Tatsachenbehauptungen untersagt

Landgericht Hamburg verbietet Berichterstattung der Vanity Fair Das Landgericht Hamburg, Deutschland, hat am 21. Dezember 2015 eine einstweilige Verfügung gegen die Herausgeberin der U.S. Print- und Online-Ausgabe der Vanity Fair, die Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. aus New York, erlassen. Antragsteller war der deutsche Geschäftsmann Daniel Giersch. Giersch war von 2006 bis 2009 mit der U.S. Schauspielerin Kelly Rutherford verheiratet. Das Gericht hat der Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. die Verbreitung und Wiederholung verschiedener Äußerungen in Bezug auf Daniel Giersch verboten, die auf der Webseite der Vanity Fair mit dem Titel „Inside Kelly Rutherford’s Brutal, Globe-Spanning Custody Battle“ veröffentlicht worden waren und sich mit identischem Text unter dem Titel „Irreconcilable Distances“ auch in der November-Ausgabe der Vanity Fair Printfassung fand. Der Originaltext der einstweiligen Verfügung, aus dem sich die einzelnen Verbote ergeben, hängt dieser Pressemitteilung an (inkl. einer englischen Übersetzung). Entscheidungen im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz sind ihrer Natur nach vorläufig und werden erst mit Zustellung rechtlich wirksam. „Unser Mandant Daniel Giersch musste in den letzten Jahren immer wieder Äußerungen über sich in der Presse ertragen, die unwahr und frei erfunden waren. Damit muss jetzt Schluss sein!“, sagt Rechtsanwalt Dr. Oliver Scherenberg vom Hamburger Büro der Rechtsanwaltskanzlei PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER. „Unser Mandant hat durch die unwahren und rufschädigenden Behauptungen erhebliche Reputationsschäden erlitten, gegen die er sich jetzt wehren wird. Das Vorgehen gegen die falschen Äußerungen in der Vanity Fair sind nur der Anfang.“ Scherenberg und sein Team sind von Daniel Giersch mit der Koordinierung der weltweiten rechtlichen Aufarbeitung von falschen und herabsetzenden Äußerungen beauftragt.

Daniel Giersch hat sich bis zuletzt mit Rücksicht auf die laufenden Sorgerechtsauseinandersetzungen mit seiner Ex-Ehefrau mit rechtlichen Maßnahmen gegen falsche Äußerungen in der Presse zurück gehalten. Zum Schutz seiner Kinder und seiner persönlichen Integrität kann und will er falsche und ehrverletzende Äußerungen jetzt aber nicht länger hinnehmen. Scherenberg fährt fort: „Die Kinder unseres Mandanten müssen die Möglichkeit haben, in Ruhe und Frieden und vor der Öffentlichkeit geschützt aufzuwachsen. Dazu gehört nicht nur, dass sie in der Presse keine falschen Dinge über ihren Vater lesen müssen. Dazu gehört auch, die Kinder insgesamt aus den Medien so gut es geht herauszuhalten. Wir haben in den vergangenen Wochen in Europa bereits mit Erfolg umfangreiche Maßnahmen eingeleitet, um die Abbildung der Kinder unseres Mandanten in der Presse zu unterbinden und werden diese Bemühungen auch fortsetzen.“ Dankenswerterweise ist die Kooperationsbereitschaft zahlreicher namhafter Bildagenturen und vieler Medien groß. Zum Schutz der Privatsphäre der Kinder von Herrn Giersch sollen Bilder der Kinder in Zukunft allenfalls verpixelt gezeigt werden. Maßgeblich beteiligte Rechtsanwälte von PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER im Verfahren vor dem Landgericht Hamburg: Dr. Oliver Scherenberg, Michael-Matthias Nordhardt.

PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER ist eine Sozietät von Rechtsanwälten an den Standorten München, Berlin, Düsseldorf und Hamburg. PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER gehört zu den führenden deutschen Kanzleien in den Bereichen Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Pharmarecht sowie Presse-, Medien- und Entertainmentrecht. Kontakt:

Dr. Oliver Scherenberg Rechtsanwalt ---

PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER Rechtsanwälte | Steuerberater | Wirtschaftsprüfer Tesdorpfstr. 8 | D-20148 Hamburg Phone: +49 - 40 - 41 42 99 - 12 | Fax: +49 - 40 - 41 42 99 - 22 E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.preubohlig.de

Zitate frei bei Nennung der Quelle „Rechtsanwaltskanzlei PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER“.

2

Press Release

23 December 2015

Daniel Giersch vs. Vanity Fair: Untrue assertions of fact prohibited

Hamburg Regional Court bans Vanity Fair’s Report

On 21 December 2015, the Hamburg Regional Court in Germany issued a preliminary injunction against the publisher of the US print and online editions of Vanity Fair, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. of New York. The petitioner was the German businessman, Daniel Giersch. Giersch was married to US actress Kelly Rutherford from 2006 to 2009. The court ordered Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. not to disseminate and repeat various assertions that were made about Daniel Giersch and published on the Vanity Fair website under the caption “Inside Kelly Rutherford‘s Brutal GlobeSpanning Custody Battle”. The same text was published in the November edition of Vanity Fair in an article entitled “Irreconcilable Distances”. The original wording of the preliminary injunction that contains the individual prohibitions, is appended to this press release (together with an English translation of the court order). Injunctive orders are preliminary in nature and will become legally enforceable upon service of process. “Our client, Daniel Giersch, has had to repeatedly endure in recent years numerous assertions that were untrue and completely fabricated. This needs to come to an end, now”, remarks German Attorney-at-Law Dr. Oliver Scherenberg of the Hamburg law firm of PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER. “Our client has suffered significant injury to his reputation due to these untrue and defamatory assertions, against which he is now defending himself. The actions taken against the false assertions published in Vanity Fair are only the beginning.” Scherenberg, together with his team is retained by Daniel Giersch to coordinate the global defense strategy against the false and disparaging statements.

Daniel Giersch has been mindful of the child custody dispute currently pending with his ex-wife and has to the end exercised restraint in taking legal action against the false assertions appearing in the press. In an effort to protect his children and his own per-

sonal integrity, he now cannot and will not tolerate this situation of false and defamatory assertions any longer. Scherenberg continues: “The children of our client must have an opportunity to grow up in peace and to be shielded from the glare of the public eye. This means that they should not have to read falsehoods in the press about their father. It also means that they should be kept out of the media spotlight as much as possible. In recent weeks, we have launched extensive and successful campaigns throughout Europe in order to prevent images of our client’s children from appearing in the press, and we will also continue to undertake these efforts going forward”. Thankfully, these efforts have found support among numerous reputable image agencies and media outlets. In order to protect the private sphere of Mr. Giersch’s children, images of the children are to be, at the very least, pixilated or blurred in the future.

PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER lawyers who are principally involved in the proceedings before the Hamburg Regional Court are Dr. Oliver Scherenberg and Michael-Matthias Nordhardt.

PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER is a law firm with offices in Munich, Berlin, Düsseldorf and Hamburg. PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER is one of the leading German law firms specializing in intellectual property and pharmaceutical law as well as media and entertainment law. Contact:

Dr. Oliver Scherenberg German Attorney-at-Law ---

PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER Rechtsanwälte | Steuerberater | Wirtschaftsprüfer Tesdorpfstr. 8 | D-20148 Hamburg Phone: +49 - 40 - 41 42 99 - 12 | Fax: +49 - 40 - 41 42 99 - 22 E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.preubohlig.de

Quotes may be freely used upon identifying their source, “the law firm of PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER”.

2

Officially Executed Copy

Regional Court of Hamburg Case reference: 324 0 638/15

[Circular stamp containing the words, “Regional Court of Hamburg … 27 Hamburg”, which circumscribe the Hamburg coat of arms, appears here and again lower on this page]

[Rectangular stamp containing the words “Received… 22 December 2015… Preu, Bohlig & Partner, Hamburg”]

Coat of Arms Court Order In the matter of Daniel Giersch, [text redacted]

– Petitioner –

Attorney of Record: Attorneys Preu, Bohlig & Partner Tesdorpfstrasse 8, 20148 Hamburg [text redacted] versus Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. represented by and through its managing director, Charles H Townsend, One World Trade Center, 10007 New York, USA [text redacted] – Respondent – the Regional Court of Hamburg – Civil Division 24 – through the Presiding Judge of the Regional Court, Judge Käfer, Regional Court Judge Dr. Gronau and Regional Court Judge Dr. Linke – has issued the following restraining order on 21 December 2015 without a hearing based on an exigency within the meaning of sec. 937 para. 2 of the German Code of Civil Procedure: 1. By way of the preliminary injunction [einstweilige Verfügung], which is backed by the threat of a disciplinary fine to be set by the court up to EUR 250,000 for each violation of this order, and in the event such fine cannot be exacted, backed by up to six month’s arrest for contempt of court (disciplinary fine in any given case no more than EUR 250,000; arrest for contempt of court for up to no more than a total of two years), the Respondent is prohibited and enjoined

from asserting and/or allowing to be asserted and/or disseminating and/or allowing to be disseminated in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany the following related to the Petitioner: [Translator note: the quoted text below appears in English in the original German source text] a. “And as she would later testify in court, ‘he did not want my son to have a US passport. Only a German passport. “Rutherford says she didn’t mind her son’s having a German passport but wanted him to also have an American one.” b.“In December 2008, when she was three months pregnant with Helena, Rutherford initiated divorce proceedings, citing ‘irreconcilable differences’.” c. with regard to the Petitioner’s ex-wife, Kelly Rutherford, from asserting and/or allowing to be asserted and/or disseminating and/or allowing to be disseminated: aa. “I wanted us both to be great parents. I wasn’t asking for full custody” - rather, 50-50 legal custody, with her as the primary residential parent”; … f. aa. “It was a very difficult labor, and Giersch, Rutherford says, requested to be in the delivery room.”; bb. “Rutherford says that he visited their daughter in the hospital, and held her, the very next day.” as each one of these quotes appears in the free online version of “Vanity Fair” at http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/10/Kelly-rutherford-custody-battle under the heading “Inside Kelly Rutherford’s Brutal, Global-Spanning Custody Battle”. 2. The Petitioner must bear 4/10, and the Respondent 6/10, of the costs of the proceeding. 3. The amount in dispute is determined at €70,000.

Grounds: The Petitioner objects to the various statements that the Respondent has allowed to be disseminated about him on the Internet in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Petitioner is entitled to the injunctive relief sought because the report, which is the subject matter of the dispute, has violated his general privacy rights [Persönlichkeitsrechte] afforded under German civil and constitutional law (sections 823 (1), 1004 of the German Civil Code, in combination with Arts. 1 and 2 of the German Constitution). He has presented prima facie evidence showing that the prohibited statements are untrue. It should be noted that the injunction prohibits only the statements that were underlined. The statement shown under item 1) a) above is effectively understood to mean that the Petitioner did not want his son to have a US passport. The statement is further understood to mean that Kelly Rutherford also had nothing against the son holding a German passport in addition to a US passport. The statement shown under item 1) b) is effectively construed by readers to mean that Kelly Rutherford was the first to file for divorce. The other (underlined) statements should also be prohibited because the impression they leave on readers is one that is untrue based on the prima facie evidence submitted by the Petitioner. The decision about court costs is based on sections 92, 269 of the German Code of Civil Procedure.

Information about Appeals: A statement in opposition [Widerspruch] may be filed against the decision. There is no deadline for filing the statement in opposition. The statement in opposition must be filed with Regional Court of Hamburg Sievekingplatz 1 20355 Hamburg

The statement in opposition must be accompanied by a formal legal brief from an attorney at law.

An appeal [Beschwerde] may be lodged against the decision that determined the amount in dispute, if the value of the appeal exceeds EUR 200 or the court has allowed the appeal. The appeal must be filed with Regional Court of Hamburg Sievekingplatz 1 20355 Hamburg within six months. The filing deadline will begin to run when the decision in the main case is formally entered or the procedure is otherwise brought to a close. If the amount in dispute was determined later than one month prior to the expiration of the six-month filing deadline, then the appeal can still be filed within one month following formal service of process or an informal notification about the determination order. In the event of an informal communication, notice of the order will be deemed to have been made on the third day after it is deposited with the postal service. The appeal must be submitted either in writing or by oral declaration made and entered on the record of the clerk of the court mentioned above. The appeal may also be made by oral declaration entered on the record of the clerk of any local court. The filing deadline will be met, however, only if the record is seasonably received by the court mentioned above. Assistance from an attorney at law is not required. /Signed/ Käfer Presiding Judge of the Regional Court

Dr. Gronau Regional Court Judge

Dr. Linke Regional Court Judge

Hereby confirming that the official executed copy of this order matches the original order Hamburg, 22 December 2015 Illegible name and signature Document Official of the Court Clerk’s Office [Superimposed on the text immediately above is a circular stamp containing the words “Regional Court of Hamburg … 27 Hamburg” circumscribing the Hamburg coat of arms]